Global warming...Yay or Nay ?

[deicer]

You are not "seeing" or "smelling" C02 my friend... Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is a colourless odourless gas that people and animals exhale. It is something else you are complaining about which would definitely be defined as a pollutant... 

I know that...

The potent mix of greenhouse gasses that makes a sunny day look brown includes the CO2 as well.

And even though carbon is naturally occuring, it is the actions of the top preditor on the planet that is taking the ratio of carbon way out of whack.

Time to help rebalance the equation.

Iceman

[Steam Driven]

Sorry deicer, again, it's not the C02 that is causing your problem... It's the S0x, V0c's and N0x that are causing your problems... I agree that we should be concentrating on and reducing the production and release of these compounds. Not, expending ridiculous sums of money on C02 capture and sequestration... Or denying permits for $8 Billion worth of investment because an operator can not ensure that C02 will not be created or contained...

Air Emissions Performance

We continue to work on reducing air emissions from our operations. We track emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) originate from the combustion of hydrocarbons in our operations. SOx and NOx can contribute to the formation of acid rain. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are hydrocarbons associated with natural gas and crude oil and represent lost product when released. They can serve as a precursor to smog, which in high concentrations can pose health risks.

"CO2 is a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

There is not too much we can do about the dominant contributor of the green house effect - Water Vapour - the science that I've read and logic, tell me that reducing the .1 of 1% of CO2 that Man contributes will not change the way Nature intends to warm or cool this Planet."

[DEFCON]

Fido

"You do yourself a disservice for looking for a conspiracy behind the oil price issue."

I don't see much of a conspiracy in this regard?

[DEFCON]

Moon

"DEFCON: I've said that over and over again, and even on this forum. Oil is not a fossil fuel. Coal, probably. Peat, definitely. If only plant material."

Sorry, I wasn't trying to plagiarize your earlier posts.

[Moon The Loon]

Moon

"DEFCON: I've said that over and over again, and even on this forum. Oil is not a fossil fuel. Coal, probably. Peat, definitely. If only plant material."

Sorry, I wasn't trying to plagiarize your earlier posts.

Sorry if I gave that impression DEFCON - absolutely not intended. Apologies if that's how you saw it! I've never been misinterpreted before

[Guest rattler]

The following comes as no surprise. Massive amounts of money = lots of fraud.

The great carbon bazaar

By Mark Gregory

Business correspondent, BBC World Service, India 

Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.

The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realised without external funding.

We've got a procedure that works

Yvo De Boer, executive secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

The BBC World Service investigation found examples of projects in India where this appeared to be the case.

Arguably, this defeats the whole point of the CDM scheme, set up under the Kyoto climate change protocol, as these projects are getting money for nothing.

The findings reinforce doubts that the CDM is leading to real emission cuts, which is not good news for the effort to combat climate change.

And in one case a company is earning truly staggering sums of money from the carbon credits it is receiving - perhaps as much as $500m (£250m) over a period of 10 years - for a project it says it would have carried out without the incentive of the CDM.

Not watertight

The man in ultimate charge of running the Clean Development Mechanism insists it is fundamentally sound.

"We've got a procedure that works," says Yvo De Boer, the top official at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

He is referring to the elaborate registration process projects must go through to qualify for carbon credits from the CDM.

But even Mr De Boer accepts the system is not perfect.

"At the end of the day it's always a matter of judgement," he says.

"And no, it's not watertight."

Flawed system

In order to receive carbon credits from the CDM, projects are supposed to demonstrate that they will lead to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that are "additional" to what would have happened without the availability of credits.

[The] numbers are more favourable for us because of the CDM

Manoj Saxena, a senior manager at a KRBL rice milling plant 

This concept of "additionality" is crucial to the credibility of the mechanism because of the way the system works.

The buyers of CDM credits are companies in developed nations, mostly in Europe, who use them to offset their own emissions.

They are allowed to count the carbon credits towards targets they would otherwise have to meet by cutting emissions at their own factories and offices, which is usually much more expensive.

The system is intended to give western firms a low cost way of achieving emission targets while at the same time getting businesses in developing nations involved in tackling climate change.

But it only works if the carbon credits generated by projects in developing nations really do represent genuine emission cuts.

Would have done it anyway

Three projects in India were investigated to see if the "additionality" test has been met.

One case involved the installation of a biomass generator to provide electricity at a rice milling plant in the state of Utter Pradesh in Northern India.

I'm happy that a very potent greenhouse gas is being removed

Yvo De Boer, executive secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

KRBL, India's largest exporter of Basmati rice, spent $5m on the generator, which replaced a less climate friendly diesel powered system.

The generator runs on rice husks, a renewable energy source. The husks are a waste material from the rice milling process.

The company has almost completed the registration procedure and is set to receive carbon credits from the CDM worth several hundred thousand dollars a year.

Yet, when asked whether the carbon credits were important for the company's decision to install the biomass generator, Manoj Saxena, a senior manager at the plant, responded "not really" and confirmed that it would have done the project anyway, even without the CDM funds.

"[The] numbers are more favourable for us because of the CDM," he acknowledged.

He was then asked whether the company would take the money if the authorities of the CDM were silly enough to give it a million dollars extra for it, to which he replied: "Yes, definitely. Why not?"

KRBL's rice husk driven generator is unquestionably a useful project from an environmental point of view, but the evidence gathered by the BBC World Service investigation suggests it would have been installed anyway without financial help from carbon credits.

Massive windfall

Indian chemical company SRF is also receiving substantial numbers of CDM carbon credits for eliminating an obscure industrial waste product known as HFC23, a highly potent greenhouse gas.

We would have done it anyway

Mukund Trivedy, spokesman, SRF 

HFC23 is a by-product of manufacturing refrigerant gases used to cool fridges and air conditioners.

It is nearly 12,000 times as toxic as carbon dioxide in its climate impact if it enters the atmosphere.

But getting rid of HFC23 is quite easy and relatively cheap.

The solution is to burn it off in an incinerator.

SRF has installed an incinerator for burning off HFC23 at its plant in Rajasthan.

The project has been registered with the CDM and is receiving up to 3.8 million carbon credits a year.

These are currently worth $50m to $60m a year.

SRF is likely to receive the credits for a period of about 10 years, so it is in line for a total windfall in the region of more than $500m, a gigantic sum for a smallish chemical plant located in rural India.

The incentives work

The company will not say what it cost to install the incinerator, but the figure is far les than the value of the credits obtained.

The number of carbon credits awarded to SRF and other similar firms for dealing with HFC23 is linked to its theoretical climate potency.

The actual cost of eliminating the gas is not taken into account.

The UN's Mr De Boer, the man in charge of the Clean Development Mechanism, defends the huge payouts made to companies like SRF.

"I'm happy that a very potent greenhouse gas is being removed," he says.

"I'm very happy that the Kyoto protocol has created a market mechanism that makes it interesting for companies to do that, because evidence shows us that in the absence of the CDM that greenhouse gas was not being destroyed.

"There was no incentive to destroy that greenhouse gas apart from the CDM"

His argument is that while it may have been expensive, at least the CDM is responsible for getting rid of a particularly nasty greenhouse gas.

But is this true? Did companies really need the CDM to take action?

During a tour of the plant at SRF's factory in Rajasthan, the company's official spokesman, Mukund Trivedy, revealed that "we would have done it anyway". He was then asked to confirm whether the project would have been carried out even if the CDM scheme hadn't been set up.

"That's right," he responded.

Which begs the question; if they were going to eliminate HFC23 emissions themselves anyway, why give them carbon credits worth several hundred million dollars?

Not solving the problem

The third company investigated by BBC World Service was a large hydro scheme in the Northern Indian state of Himalchal Pradesh.

There were arguments on both sides as whether the project genuinely deserved to qualify for carbon credits.

The CDM operates on a massive scale. More than 1,000 projects have already qualified for carbon credits.

A further 3,000 projects have applied.

Trade in CDM carbon credits is running at some $10bn a year.

That is a welcome flow of resources from the developed to the developing world.

But it is far from clear that the trade in credits is contributing much to tackling global warming.

Mark Gregory's investigation into carbon trading is broadcast on One Planet on BBC World Service radio at various times on Thursday 5 June. UK listeners can hear it on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm that same evening, entitled The Great Carbon Bazaar.

Story from BBC NEWS:

[Guest rattler]

Looks like we are joining the herd. As far as I am concerned, emissions should be measured by the Tonne and not by per capita. It is the sum total of a nations emissions that causes any problem, not the per capita emissions. Being a "World Leader" means nothing if the worst polluting nations continue to do so in Mega-Tonne amounts. It is a little like getting on the case of a person who drives a car that only gets 20MPG but who only drives 1000 miles a year vs the person who gets 30MPG but drives 10,000miles a year. Which one is the actual enerby glutton???

MPs approve climate-change bill calling for Kyoto-style emissions cuts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 20:32 on June 4, 2008, EDT.

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

New democratic Party leader Jack Layton asks a question during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday June 4, 2008. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Tom Hanson

OTTAWA - The House of Commons has given its final approval to a controversial climate-change bill that would require the government to drastically cut greenhouse gases.

NDP Leader Jack Layton's private-member's bill passed third reading Wednesday with the support of the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois.

Once it clears the Senate and receives royal assent, the bill would require the government to gradually cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

It would also require Ottawa to set interim reduction targets for every five years between 2015 and 2050 - but if previous legislative attempts are any indication, the minority Conservatives will ignore the bill.

The bill's reduction targets are closely in line with cuts required by the Kyoto Protocol, of which Canada is a signatory.

But the Conservative government has dismissed the Kyoto reduction targets as unattainable and has instead committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.

Layton wouldn't say how - or if - the opposition could force the Tories to adopt the bill's reduction targets.

"We wish Mr. Harper would wake up when it comes to the issue of climate change and start to take it more seriously," he said.

"Unfortunately, we just tend to get bombast from his (environment) minister and that's about it."

Environment Minister John Baird's communications director, Garry Keller, chastised the opposition parties for passing "feel-good" legislation on climate change.

"Unlike the opposition, our government is taking real, decisive action by forcing big polluters to cut their emissions," he said in an e-mail.

Some environmental groups don't see it that way.

"Canadians want their government to get back in the game and fight global warming," Dave Martin of Greenpeace said in an e-mail.

"This Act would make Canada a world leader, if we had a supportive government."

[DEFCON]

Question number 8 is "loaded" and I'd guess, intended to mislead?

The graph stops at approximately the year 1950? The author then frames his question. Had the graph been complete & continued to the present, the "correct" answer would be considerably different.